Search

Objective: Pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) and Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) are the most widely accepted methods in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral lithiasis. The objective is to compare efficacy and safety of pneumatic lithotripsy vs. Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral lithiasis., Material and Methods: Prospective, single-blind, multicenter study. Adult patients were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 institutions throughout Argentina. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, presence of double J stent prior to the intervention, stonefree rate (SF) and postoperative complications were evaluated and analyzed., Results: A total of 366 patients with ureteral lithiasis were included, 204 in the PL group and 162 in the LL group. The SF rate was significantly higher in the LL group (77% vs. 92%), OR 3 .43 (1.76 to 6.70). The complication rate was significantly lower in the LL group (9.8% vs. 2.5%), OR 0.23 (0.07 to 0.71). In the multivariate analysis, the use of Ho: YAG energy, the location of the lithiasis in the distal ureter, and the preoperative placement of double J stent, were found to be predictors of SF status., Conclusions: Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy has a higher stone-free rate and a lower complication rate compared to pneumatic lithotripsy.

Objective: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperative placement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patients undergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone., Materials and Methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included: demographic data, stone size and location, stone-free rate (SFR) and complications., Results: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent) and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 without prior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group with previous JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone (82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and in the treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR 3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were established in the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteral stone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and in the treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76 (0.13 a 4.46))., Conclusions: The preoperative placement of JJ stent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.